Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
making an aspis
#61
I don't have a clue about steamed aspides...It was my first thought when I started wanting to make one myself,as it sounds easier.And also,as a musician,I thought of musical instruments constructed in a similar way. Unfortunately,they seem to have chosen the most difficult way for everything.For example,one piece helmets,greaves staying in place by the elasticity of the bronze,cuirasses following the anatomy of the body etc.Once again,the aspis was carved in shape,and it had different thickness in every place.
Also,how easy is it to steam a plank between 1-2 cm thick?
Today we try to recreate things that had been perfected through centuries.Its construction was fabricated,they had special lathes and factories.And they covered them with a beaten bronze faceConfusedhock:
Khaire
Giannis
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#62
Giannis wrote:-
Quote:Vatican shield is constructed of I think five planks of wood,probably poplar, and carved in shape.
....where did you get that information from?
On re-reading my source, I see that although he describes the bowl as "solid", and there appears to be a typographical error where he says '..no evidence for glued joints', it should read "..there is evidence of glued joints which indicate the wooden bowl has been assembled from two or more carved pieces.This is confirmed by the fact that the grain direction is not always the same.At the centre of the bowl the wood thickness is 2-2.5 cm ....tapering to 1.1 cm where the rim joins " (i.e. thickest in the centre, thinnest near the rim - totally unlike Connolly's reconstruction cross section....).The inner side of the wooden bowl has been covered with a thin layer of leather ( about 0.25 mm thick) and so has the rim.The junction between bowl leather and rim leather seems to have been made by sewing." Incidently, the shield is almost but not quite circular ( c.f. Sphacteria shield) at 82x81.5 cm, which would be accounted for by slight play in the lathe bearings, and the rim is 3.8 cm wide.
The bronze cover is 1mm or less in parts, and my source (who personally examined the vatican shield in detail) says only that the wood "is a long fibred species"
Quote:Paul,what evidence is there for laminated shields in the 4th century? The only evidence on shield construction I know of is the Vatican shield and the 7th century Chigi vase,which can be interpreted in a number of ways.
There is also the bronze facing from the 'Sphacteria' shield, inscribed by the Athenians and the 'Olynthus' shield, whose rim Paul B. posted photos of. G.E.Mylonas (A.J.A. 43 (1939)at p.57 described it's structure thus:-
"The interior of the shield was made of (criss) crossing pieces of wood (ptuches) probably covered in the centre with hide (interior, possibly exterior too since only the rim appears to have been bronze). Within the broad rim were found pieces of charred wood 6 cm wide ( strips), 5 small bronze rings, 1 with a hook attached,2 bronze nails..."
Two (of several) further fragmented remains of shields come Olympia, and their publisher (E. Kunze : Olympiabericht III(1959) describes 'curved struts' which appear to have been internal support for a shield similair to the Olynthus type - compare later Roman scuta of similar structure, hence these type shields will have been much thinner and lighter than the 'solid' variety.
Quote:If we trust Connolly's paintings,the grain of the wood does not suggest steaming
...unfortunately Connolly's reconstruction is incorrect in a number of respects, particularly the rim structure. His cross section is imaginary and no guide at all to construction, or shape.
Wulf wrote:-( incidently, Wulf, you must add your real name to your signature....forum rule)
Quote:thanks Giannis, that makes a lot more sense.
Though i think Paullus may not have understood completely what i meant by the term 'planks'
I'd agree that planks glued edge to edge would make sense - see above. A ply core is, of course, strongest.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#63
There must be a mistake in your source,Paul. Is it possible that the Vatican shield was 2,5 cm thick in the center and 1 near the rim? Not only Connolly but also N.Secunda (Greek Hoplite) and Davis Hanson and a lot more references talk about the Vatican shield being thicker near the rim. Secunda's and Connolly's paintings coincide in the construction of the rim and in many ways they coincide with what I can see in the photo I'm posting.
The Spartan shield is never said to have had traces of the wooden core and so I don't see why you use it as an example.And the very small difference in diameters I can't imagine how it has been calculated with such accuracy,since the bronze facing is devastated to an extend.
I'd need to see the wooden parts of the Olynthos shield and I'm sure you need it,too. They could be parts of the rim reinforcements and I don't think if they were actually constructed like this that they'd be thinner. They'd have many layers of small wood planks,like the scutum,apparently.
Why do you think "Connolly's reconstruction is incorrect in a number of respects,particularly the rim structure"?
Secunda is the one who designed the shield consisting of five planks.
Khaire
Giannis
[Image: cbbb0dad.jpg]
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#64
Yes, there is a clear conflict in sources here, Giannis, but I doubt my source is mistaken. Let us examine the two sources ( and I think there are only two, and that Sekunda( haven't seen this - which of his books is it?), Hanson et al are simply following Connolly.)
As is clear from a comparison of your photos ( thanks for posting these BTW! ) and Connolly's paintings of same, he had at least seen the shield sometime around 1976. It is also clear his paintings are somewhat inaccurate - e.g. he has the porpax intact, the bronze face intact when a considerable part is missing, the rim damage in the wrong place etc etc

My source is Dr G. Jeronimides, via his colleague Dr P.H. Blyth. The Vatican Museum allowed Dr Jeronomides to examine the shield in detail, at around the same time as Connolly ( therefore Connolly's errors/artistic licence are not due to any change in the condition of the shield).I have a copy of his report, which was duly published in Blyth's 1977 Doctoral thesis on the Effectiveness of Greek Armour. I have already mentioned most of his report's findings above, but will include some more detail.
"The shield seems in fairly good condition, although the centre of the bowl and some sections of the rim have been corroded away. (n.b. already in the first line more accurate than Connolly)
The wood inside is not laminated, and about half the original quantity remains.The shield has not been restored in any way, and various bits of wood and other metal fittings are loose (! Confusedhock: )
The outer bronze is very smooth and without any design or engraving on it.
The shape is nearly circular, 82 cmx 81.5 cm.
The thickness of the bronze cover is 0.1 cm or less.There is no sign of weapon damage.
The width of the bronze rim is 3.8 cm, almost constant around the circumference. The rim has seven holes ( diameter about 0.3 cm) more or less evenly spaced. They seem to be rivet or nail holes, but no rivets or nails remain. The petals of the holes point inwards. The edge of the rim is about 0.8 cm deep.
The wood seems to be a long-fibred species. There is no ( sic - typographical error, judging by following context, "no" should be deleted) evidence of some glued joints which indicate that the wooden bowl has been assembled from two or more carved pieces. This is confirmed by the fact that the grain direction is not always the same. At the centre of the bowl the wood thickness is 2.0-2.5 cm. The rim of the wooden bowl has been carved as in fig 1 below. The lower part of the wooden rim has a sort of rib glued to it, and a second rib is glued on the bronze. The two ribs provide the contact ( see fig 2) -[ see attachment for figs 1 and 2 - which clearly show shape different to Connolly]
The inner side of the wooden bowl has been covered with a thin layer of leather ( about 0.25 mm thick) and so has the rim. The junction between the bowl leather and the rim leather seems to have been made by sewing"

Notice that Dr Jeronomides was specifically allowed to examine the shield in detail, and gives exact measurements, which Connolly originally (1977) did not, nor does he say he examined the shield closely.
In his later book, "Greece and Rome at War", Connolly gave a little more detail.(p.53)

"This shield, which probably comes from an Etruscan grave, has survived sufficiently intact to permit a complete restoration with absolute certainty. The complete bronze facing has survived without distortion ( my emphasis - this is also the way he painted it, but he is clearly mistaken, as the photos and Dr Jeronomides description make clear.)
He goes on to describe the rim.....
".. are revealed in the cross section where one can see how how he has had to pad the rim with slivers of wood. In its original form this shield would have weighed about 7kg" ( c.f. Dr Jeronomides detailed description and measurements of the rim 'ribs' - though this could be down to interpretation, Dr J's description and measurements are precise)
"The wooden core core of the Argive shield was only about 0.5 cm in the centre and a re-inforcing plate was often placed on the inside..."

Compare Dr Jeronomides figure of 2.0 cm aprox, tapering (probably intended to be uniform) to 1.9 cm, and then on the steep curve to 1.1.cm - which is much more like what you would expect to find. Connolly's design would make no sense for a shield designed primarily against a spear thrust - a thick rim and thin centre would be most effective against a 'slash' at rim or across the face, rather than a thrust to the face of the shield, where it is thinnest. Dr J's reconstruction ( with detailed measurements) makes much more sense - a fairly uniform thickness, tapering on the steep curve ( where, like tank armour, the 'slope' adds effective thickness)

Given Connolly's errors and lack of detail I would guess he saw the shield, but did not examine it in closely, or measure it,( notice he never says he measured it) hence the errors; and the rest is guesswork on his part. On the other hand, Dr Jeronomides definitely did examine and measure the shield in detail. I therefore prefer Dr J's information as more accurate and correct.......readers must decide for themselves! Smile D
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#65
Thanks Paul,very interesting.Just a note,in the photos I posted above,the bottom right shield is of course not the same as the other three.It is not the Vatican shield.The only spot where Connolly painted the shield intact when it wasn't,is the small part of the porpax and a very small part of the facing just under the porpax.In both cases,his interpretation is a safe guess.
I agree,that given the amount of measurements,your source looks more reliable than Connolly.All the sources agree that within the bronze rim there were three layers of wood,one the original wooden core and the other two added for some reason,wither to fit in the rim or for protection or both.
Here Connolly's painting(that I find fairly accurate,compared to the photos above) and Secunda's design from the Osprey book "Greek Hoplite"
[Image: gregoriano.jpg][Image: aspis.jpg]
Khaire
Giannis
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#66
To my knowledge no aspis was constructed of a single piece of wood- suitable trees of 1 meter diameter were probably scarce in Greece.

Secunda's drawing of the aspis above is from Blyth's 1982 article "Bolletino Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Pontificie 3" (No, I do not have access to it Smile ). A later source than his thesis and perhaps modified. There is information in Sekunda's book not mentioned by Jeronimides- Secunda states the wood in the Museo Gregoriano aspis is poplar, more precise than Jeronimides "long-fibred species". The five planks in Sekunda are much more precise, if correct, than "two or more carved pieces".

The Jeronimides work has some obvious problems with wording, perhaps due to mistranslation. I think the two descriptions are immediately reconcilable if his
Quote:At the centre of the bowl the wood thickness is 2.0-2.5 cm.


Should have referred to the center of the acute arching section before the rim- which would have tapered in both directions. The acute bend would need to be thickened or minimal flexion would snap the shield.

Quote:Connolly's design would make no sense for a shield designed primarily against a spear thrust - a thick rim and thin centre would be most effective against a 'slash' at rim or across the face, rather than a thrust to the face of the shield, where it is thinnest. Dr J's reconstruction ( with detailed measurements) makes much more sense - a fairly uniform thickness, tapering on the steep curve ( where, like tank armour, the 'slope' adds effective thickness)

I addressed this in my article. It is one of the major features that convince me that the aspis was not optimally designed for defending against slashes and stabs. The taper at the rim does not act like sloped armor for it is too severe and of limited extent. Both Assyrian conical shields and Roman hemicylindrical shields could benefit from this effect as well as the fact that they would present a flattened surface to sweeping slashes.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#67
Yes, clearly the fourth photo isn't the Vatican shield, since you can see straight through the centre of the porpax-shaped hole! BTW, which shield is this and where is it?
I am not trying to be overly critical of Connolly, his rendering does give a good impression of the Vatican shield, even if some of the detail is inaccurate. But these small clues do imply he did not get to examine it closely.
Sekunda's drawing is intriguing. It has 2 details that Connolly didn't refer to - the number of planks, and the shape of the extra rim pieces.
It seems to me that you couldn't determine these from the state of the shield.....though perhaps if a single plank width is intact, you could deduce the number of planks, but the rim is entirly covered in front by bronze and behind by leather and bronze and it would be fortuitous if one of the few breaks were over a join.....
By implication, Dr J was not able to deduce the number of planks from his detailed examination.
All these are largely quibbles however - the major and significant difference is in the shield profiles which are opposite!

Connolly gives 5 mm (0.2 inches) at the centre,[surely impossibly thin?] thickening to an unspecified thickness at the rim.

Sekunda seems to follow this ( does he give measurements?)

Dr J. gives a fairly uniform 2.0/2.5 cm at centre to 1.9cm at the rim, which then tapers at the 'shoulder' to 1.1 cm [see attachment previous post]

This last does seem far more sensible/logical a design than Connolly's - though I hasten to add it cannot be entirely ruled out ( still...5mm at the centre! )
...and yes, as I said, the difference between what C. calls 'padding' and Dr J. 'ribs' is merely wording/interpretation.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#68
Paul B. wrote:-
Quote:The Jeronimides work has some obvious problems with wording, perhaps due to mistranslation. I think the two descriptions are immediately reconcilable if his
Quote:
At the centre of the bowl the wood thickness is 2.0-2.5 cm.


Should have referred to the center of the acute arching section before the rim- which would have tapered in both directions.

...an attractive theory - until you look at the accompanying diagrams [see attachment to earlier post] There it is clear that Dr J. has 1.9 cm tapering to 1.1cm at the shoulder/rim,and not compatible with Connolly/sekunda's profile - (sadly, your suggestion, becomes difficult, if just about possible! Sad .....if Dr J's diagram is inaccurate, which I find hard to accept given that he has even observed the grain direction)
More particularly still, he says an unambiguous " centre of the bowl"

The identification of the wood as Poplar implies some further analysis/examination of the shield had taken place....does the Sekunda book "Greek Hoplite" give a reference or bibliography?
BTW: I've just tried some practical testing on a 1/4" ( 6.5 mm ) pine plank - a modest underhand thrust with a dory goes through it with ease! A more severe blow split the plank completely! I then put a piece of 1mm sheet copper over it....still penetrated with ease!
An underarm thrust with a kopis/machaira also had no trouble penetrating......

Either there is something wrong with Connolly's figure of 0.5 cm ( perhaps he meant 1/2 an inch (12 mm) ?..... Either that or the shield was designed to be penetrated by a spear, to trap it. A sort of reverse 'pilum' theory? ( i.e. spear trapped in shield is useless and quickly wrenched from owners grasp...Problem! Shield then becomes useless, pilum fashion, so that can't be right! Smile lol: :lol:
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#69
Some further thoughts on Paul Bardunias' idea:-

Thinking further, we may indeed be able to reconcile the profiles of Connolly/Sekunda with Dr Jeromonides description and sketches...provided we ignore the sizes given by Connolly ( and he doesn't have any figures for the rim anyway.

In the attachment, I have 'extended' Dr J's fig 1 to show a swelling as the 'shoulder' sharply curves around, with a 'guesstimated' thickness of 3-3.5 cm, tapering back to 2.0 cm for the 'flat' part of the shield going toward the centre.

This accords with the dimensionless profiles of Connolly/Sekunda, while preserving Dr J's measurements, thereby reconciling them.

That leaves only the problem of Connolly's dimension of 5 mm(0.2") for the centre, against Dr J's 20-25 mm (3/4,-1")....and that must surely be a mistake, or a wrong guess.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#70
Quote:In the attachment, I have 'extended' Dr J's fig 1 to show a swelling as the 'shoulder' sharply curves around, with a 'guesstimated' thickness of 3-3.5 cm, tapering back to 2.0 cm for the 'flat' part of the shield going toward the centre.

Make the guesstimate 2.5 cm and you can explain the discrepancy as I said before. I put as much faith in his "center of bowl" designation as I do in the superfluous "no" when it comes to glue.

The fact is that Jermides is the only author I have read who has not commented on the shield thickening toards the edges and thinner in the middle. At least some, if not all of these men have read Blyth's 82 paper. Whether connolly's extreme thinness is correct I cannot say, but the profile would seem to be since Blyth drew it and sekunda redrew it from that diagram.

It is odd that Jeromides did not mention the thickness of the inner arch- which you were forced to guess at- and we both agree had to be more than the rest of the shield reguardless of the nature of the taper.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#71
Just some minor points by way of 'tidying up' ;
Paul B wrote:-
Quote:The taper at the rim does not act like sloped armor for it is too severe and of limited extent.
I disagree. The angle of presentation when in use of this part of the shield, must necessarily extend the thickness a weapon must penetrate, thereby allowing it to be thinner in construction, but still present the same effective thickness to a weapon.

Quote:Make the guesstimate 2.5 cm and you can explain the discrepancy as I said before. I put as much faith in his "center of bowl" designation as I do in the superfluous "no" when it comes to glue.
.....it is not necessary to so radically 'alter' Dr J's words to achieve reconciliation of the various reports...I think 'centre of the bowl' is plain enough. Nor does a 'typo' imply 'translation problems'...despite Dr J's name it is equally, if not more, likely that the report was written in English.

Quote:but the profile would seem to be since Blyth drew it and sekunda redrew it from that diagram.
...I take it, since you don't have access to Blyth's original report, that it is given as a reference/bibliography by Sekunda?
Quote:It is odd that Jeromonides did not mention the thickness of the inner arch- which you were forced to guess at
...yes, with hindsight, but if you look at the photos, it is easy to imagine that it might be missed.

Quote:and we both agree had to be more than the rest of the shield reguardless of the nature of the taper.
.....yes, we do agree - because it is necessary to reconcile the different descriptions.
Were one to take Dr J's description at face value, since he omits mention of the thickened 'shoulder', one might assume a uniform 2.0/2.5 - 1.9 cm thickness for the face of the shield except where it meets the rim (1.1 cm), but I agree the latter is extremely unlikely in view of Blyth's later, fuller, report. Smile D
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#72
It would be interesting to estimate the weights of the two different aspis reconstructions. A shield with a thicker centre makes much more sense, but what would be the weight of a shield with a 2,0/2,5 cm thick and big wooden centre? Seems very thick to me, even if it was made of light poplar.
Wolfgang Zeiler
Reply
#73
Indeed,with Paul M's digram we have almost the entire shield made by 2cm thick planks.This is VERY THICK and heavy!It also does not explain the need for metal reinforcement in the interior as seen in the Chigi vase and in the Syphnian treasure. Paul,did you make experiments with that thick wood?
Also,there are vase paintings that show fully penetrated shields by spears(though the one I have in mind shows a homeric scene).
Add to these the aftermath of the Koroneia battle,with the "crushed" shieds.
In a normal shield it is normal to have it thicker in the center.In the hoplite battle,however,it looses its importance. Given that the "center of the bowl" is pressed either on your fellow's back or on your enemy's own shield, it is much more useful to have thick rim and outer slopes and as thin as possible center.The so thin metal cover would serve mostly to keep the planks in place and secondarily for protection.The timber shield made by manning imperial,covered with brass and constructed according to Connolly's (and Blyth's?) descriptions weights 9kgs
http://manningimperial.com/item.php?ite ... =2&c_id=10
The poplar shield without metal covering weights only 4.3kgs.I suppose if brass covered it would make about 7.5kgs.
http://manningimperial.com/item.php?ite ... =2&c_id=10
Khairete
Giannis
And Happy New Year to everybody!
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#74
Quote:I disagree. The angle of presentation when in use of this part of the shield, must necessarily extend the thickness a weapon must penetrate, thereby allowing it to be thinner in construction, but still present the same effective thickness to a weapon.

I see what you are getting at and the effect could be useful were it not for the fact that the large off-set rim already covers a blow that would impact on the truly narrow band of shield that is bending out near the rim (I should note here that many vases show a much more gradual domed shape than we generally ascribe to the aspis. In these cases they could gain from the sloped effect.) In general I am comparing the aspis to shields such as the Khalkan which is almost conical and seems to be designed to stop arrows from penetrating.

There are in fact two different, but related effects involved. In the first, which is analogous to sloped armor on tanks, any deviation from perpendicular for an incoming stab increases the thickness of wood it must penetrate (at the extreme when parallel to the shield it must penetrate the whole plank!)

The second advantage comes from intercepting an oncoming slash with the greatest surface area of wood. Simply put the best way to stop a hacking attack is to have it impact perpendicular to the flat front of the shield. The important thing is to maximize the area of the weapon that impacts the shield at the same time. This force distribution concept is what allows us to ski. Weapons get around this by making their striking surfaces more narror- a war-pick as opposed to a broad-axe. A curved shield may be angled in a manner that intercepts incoming blows with a flatter surface when the ability of a warrior to present the flat reliable might be limited.


Quote:...I take it, since you don't have access to Blyth's original report, that it is given as a reference/bibliography by Sekunda?

Yes, it would be good to find someone with acess to this report. Without it I am forced to trust those who appear to have read it.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#75
Wolfgang wrote:-
Quote:It would be interesting to estimate the weights of the two different aspis reconstructions. A shield with a thicker centre makes much more sense, but what would be the weight of a shield with a 2,0/2,5 cm thick and big wooden centre? Seems very thick to me, even if it was made of light poplar.
Giannis wrote:-
Quote:Indeed,with Paul M's digram we have almost the entire shield made by 2cm thick planks.This is VERY THICK and heavy!

....Gentlemen, I too am somewhat troubled by the various figures we have Sad On the one hand we have Connolly's figure, which I simply find very difficult to accept ( and surprising if true), on the other, a shield some 20mm thick for the most part seems to go too far the other way.
Two posssible lines of investigation present themselves - the best would be to get Blyth's 1982 report, and see what figure he gives or if the drawing is a scale one, the second would be to contact Manning Imperial ( and I know someone on RAT knows them personall from previous threads, and find out the thickness of the centre of their poplar shield, and how they dealt with problem.........
Quote:Paul,did you make experiments with that thick wood?
..alas no - they were a hasty spur of the moment experiment with a 'waste' length of pine plank I had, and a small sheet of copper my son had left over from jewellery making...I didn't have a 2cm thick plank....though I might do some comparative tests with 4 and 8 mm ply.....
As to weight, most estimates are 7-9 kg for an aspis of vatican type....and if Manning worked from that, then we could have a circular self-fulfilling hypothesis
Quote:Also,there are vase paintings that show fully penetrated shields by spears(though the one I have in mind shows a homeric scene).
Add to these the aftermath of the Koroneia battle,with the "crushed" shieds.
...keep in mind that the vases show a 'topos', but the anecdotes of Koronea and Brasidas, if true, tell us that the 'lighter,thinner' trend was appraching its limit by that time. Of course,logically, you want the lightest shield that will do the job.......
A comparison with viking shields, of which many survive ,several intact may also shed some light......
Like Aspides, they were generally 85-95 cm diameter, made of light wood planks (pine,fir,linden-basswood to our American friends) butted together, sometimes but not always covered or backed with thin leather. The planks are often of uniform thickness and average 12-20 mm thick, though some go up to 30 mm at centre. Tapered shields can be as little as 6mm at the rim. ( one shield found in Latvia intact was very unusual in being 6mm or so thick, but it was padded and stuffed with grass between wood and leather to 'thicken'it and provide a padded shock-absorbing surface to blows) and I am excluding the Gokstad shields because these are considered funeral ornaments, not battle shields.
They weighed typically 7-8 kg.
We hear, too, of exceptional blows (usually spear, sometimes axe) penetrating these,just like Aspides.
There is considerable variety in them ( and we would suspect, in Aspides also, if more survived)
Interestingly, they were wielded single handed from a boss-covered handle.
We might expect Aspides, with their forearm support and steeply curved rim to fit over the shoulder to be heavier, therefore - perhaps as much as 8-9 kg? More?

As a BTW:-

Quote:(I should note here that many vases show a much more gradual domed shape than we generally ascribe to the aspis. In these cases they could gain from the sloped effect.)
..that is quite correct and these shallower, uniform domes without the pronounced curved rim represent an earlier type of Aspis (7-6 century), with a shallow dish some 10 cm deep and a rim of aprox 5 cm. The steep shouldered Vatican/later type, some 15 cm deep, appears circa 550 BC. Some pottery shows both types ( e.g. a lekythos in NY has apparently a hoplite armed with each type - I have not seen it, but it is evidently illustrated in M.F.Vos(1963) 'Scythian archers in archaic Attic vase painting')
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Making an Aspis - Ring Method (Visual Aids) Chris B 112 60,776 10-03-2010, 11:06 PM
Last Post: M. Demetrius

Forum Jump: